If there are two candidates- one pro-life, one pro-choice, it is a mortal sin to vote for the pro-choice candidate based on that. If one candidate is unqualified for the job, or will cause serious problems for those of us who have already been born, but is against abortion, and the other candidate is pro choice (or indifferent on the issue), then I would suggest people abstain from voting.Is Voting for a Pro-Choicer a Mortal Sin?
I actually disagree with you there. I think that a member of Congress is bound by his oath not to support legislation which is clearly unconstitutional. Now, this is different from proposing legislation that would change the Constitution itself, or that would “nip at the edges” of a “right” which is wrongfully deemed to be Constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court may be the ultimate decision maker as to what passes Constitutional muster, but it is not the only branch of our government that is sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies.Finally, it is not contrary to their oath to promote legislation that has previously been determined unconstitutional or is apparently unconstitutional. For instance, Joe can support legislation that removes our right to a jury trial. In fact a majority of both houses and the President are free to support it without a breach of their oath. They just can’t take action to universally deny jury trials. It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether any law passed is Consitutional.
no it would not.LOL Under this logic, the first Senator who proposed to change a law change would be violating his oath.
If “Born, Unborn” had been added to the “Pledge of Allegience” when “Under God” was added, do you think there would have been a “Roe vs Wade”?This would accomplish little since the Pledge of Allegiance has not legal effect on the “right” to an abortion. Also, those who disagree with the proposed change would simply not say it.
Yes. Roe v. Wade is the result of a Supreme Court determined to legislate by discovering heretofore unknown Constitutional “rights” as opposed to applying and interpreting the Constitution. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with it.If “Born, Unborn” had been added to the “Pledge of Allegience” when “Under God” was added, do you think there would have been a “Roe vs Wade”?
Actually, he can, because he can say, “I got this many votes, meaning that this many people in this riding are pro-life,” and he can use those numbers to get funding for pro-life agencies that work to educate the rest of the population.The bolded part is troublesome. The pro-life cause is about saving babies period. A candidate who doesn’t win can’t save any babies. In the example, I gave on my last post such a statement would fail.
My feeling is that if more Catholics voted pro-life without looking at the polls, more pro-life candidates would be winning elections, instead of the “sort-of” pro-life candidates that are now getting in on the Catholic vote.We need to exercise prudence. *If a week *before an election a candidate is at 10% in polls, that candidate is not going to win. If there is a lesser pro-life candidate with a chance of beating a profoundly pro-abortion candidate, voting for him is certainly morally acceptable if not even obligatory if one truly wants to save babies.
Declaration of Independence (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”), not the Constitution.Is he going to institute a law to make abortion legal? Nope, too late. The SC somehow found it in the Constitution (though somehow missed the words ‘Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’).
You missed the entire meaning of the question, use your imagination and intellect.Yes. Roe v. Wade is the result of a Supreme Court determined to legislate by discovering heretofore unknown Constitutional “rights” as opposed to applying and interpreting the Constitution. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with it.
If we had been saying the Pledge of Allegience with the “Born, Un-Born” at the onset, what would you think would have happened over the course of the next 20 years? Thru repetition, people would have had the “Born, Un-born” embedded into the sub-conscience as well as the conscience, so when it came to the point where the person had gotten pregnant unexpectedly, would abortion be their first thought or would it be “keeping the baby” because of the ending of the pledge. It would be a case of conditioning, just as the “Under God” has conditioned most of us to believe that our Government was founded by God indirectly or founded on the premise of God’s values.Originally Posted by JoeyWarren
If “Born, Unborn” had been added to the “Pledge of Allegience” when “Under God” was added, do you think there would have been a “Roe vs Wade”?
The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War in response to the threat of Godless Communism. You are giving way too much credit–undeserving credit–to the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to modifying behavior.You missed the entire meaning of the question, use your imagination and intellect.
If we had been saying the Pledge of Allegience with the “Born, Un-Born” at the onset, what would you think would have happened over the course of the next 20 years? Thru repetition, people would have had the “Born, Un-born” embedded into the sub-conscience as well as the conscience, so when it came to the point where the person had gotten pregnant unexpectedly, would abortion be their first thought or would it be “keeping the baby” because of the ending of the pledge. It would be a case of conditioning, just as the “Under God” has conditioned most of us to believe that our Government was founded by God indirectly or founded on the premise of God’s values.
And there is no reason to get snotty.You missed the entire meaning of the question, use your imagination and intellect…Can you even grasp the concept?
trueAnd there is no reason to get snotty.
Better do some research on the Pledge of Allegience and to whom the ultimate honor goes for having it included. The Roman Catholic Church via the Knights of Columbus.The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War in response to the threat of Godless Communism. You are giving way too much credit–undeserving credit–to the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to modifying behavior.
But it is true that most Americans are under the impression that the USA is “the new Israel” - and that going to war against other countries is “fighting for God,” etc., even though there is no connection between God and the USA whatsoever, in reality.The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War in response to the threat of Godless Communism. You are giving way too much credit–undeserving credit–to the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to modifying behavior.
Israel is the only nation that can claim a real connection, as a nation or people, to God. However, the United States was founded by religious peoples, who were predominately Protestant in faith. Due to this history, as well as a Constitutional structure that guarantees the right of all peoples to practice their faith (including Catholics and non-Christians), the United States continues to have one of the most religious populaces of the Western Democracies. It’s not even close.But it is true that most Americans are under the impression that the USA is “the new Israel” - and that going to war against other countries is “fighting for God,” etc., even though there is no connection between God and the USA whatsoever, in reality.
Here is an excerpt fromIsrael is the only nation that can claim a real connection, as a nation or people, to God. However, the United States was founded by religious peoples, who were predominately Protestant in faith. Due to this history, as well as a Constitutional structure that guarantees the right of all peoples to practice their faith (including Catholics and non-Christians), the United States continues to have one of the most religious populaces of the Western Democracies. It’s not even close.
Uh, er…I don’t get how that was responsive to my post (#95 above) which you quoted…Here is an excerpt from
So why all these forties? Probably because it is forty weeks that a woman carries her developing baby before a new life can come forth from the womb.
All these “forties” are a necessary and not-so-comfortable prelude for something new. In Noah’s case, it’s the rebirth of a sinful world that had been cleansed by raging flood waters. In Moses’ case, it was the birth of the people of the covenant. For the nomadic Israelites, it was the start of a new, settled existence in the Promised land.
And Jesus? What did his forty days mean? The birth of a new Israel liberated from sin, reconciled to God, and governed by the law of the Spirit rather than a law chiseled in stone.
So why all these forties? Probably because it is forty weeks that a woman carries her developing baby before a new life can come forth from the womb.
All these “forties” are a necessary and not-so-comfortable prelude for something new. In Noah’s case, it’s the rebirth of a sinful world that had been cleansed by raging flood waters. In Moses’ case, it was the birth of the people of the covenant. For the nomadic Israelites, it was the start of a new, settled existence in the Promised land.
And Jesus? What did his forty days mean? **The birth of a new Israel **liberated from sin, reconciled to God, and governed by the law of the Spirit rather than a law chiseled in stone.
Read the entire article here:
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/7/Forty_Days_of_Lent.html
We are the New Israel. We have more of a claim to God then the Old Israel. Jesus came for his People and we have accepted him. Our connection to God is greater because we have accept him in it’s entirety.Israel is the only nation that can claim a real connection,
Who is “we”?We are the New Israel. We have more of a claim to God then the Old Israel. Jesus came for his People and we have accepted him. Our connection to God is greater because we have accept him in it’s entirety.
Old Israel is still waiting…
You, me, and every other Christian out there.Who is “we”?